UNITED STATES District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,
MO 63102
|
vs.
Government of the United States of America, et al Defendants/Respondents
All Defendants/Respondents are included and asserted
liable, as GOVERNMENT actors and as INDIVIDUAL actors
|
Case No. 4:14-cv-2009-DDN _
|
Motion for RECONSIDERATION
I.
First, I take exception
to the assigning of one Jean C. Hamilton UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE without, at
least, the formality of notice to the petitioner.
II.
Secondly, I take exception to, again, the assertion of Kahn v. Kahn, 21
F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). The
Federal Courts cannot divest themselves of jurisdiction for a constitutional
issue. Clearly, to any reasonable person,[1]
the 14th Amendment’s assertion of:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws”
secures the Federal Article III Court’s
jurisdiction over unconstitutional deprivation of “privileges or immunities”
i.e., the Constitution
for the United States of America Article VI. Second paragraph,[2]
1st, 4th, 5th, 6th,
7th, 8th 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for
the United States of America, Civil Rights Act
of 1866,[3]
Civil
Rights Act of 1871[4] and Civil Rights Act
of 1875/1964.[5]
III.
Thirdly and maybe most importantly
the UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE in question never read or is hiding
behind “sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”[6]
Nowhere in the original petition does the petitioner mention and/or ask
for relief from the “state family court judge in 2003, when the judge issued an
order of protection barring him from
contact with his ex-wife.”
I know this is hard for the semi-literate, sincerely ignorant and
conscientiously stupid to grasp but, as I stated and quote here, from the
original petition, dated December 3, 2014, section
V. Relief, I seek relief from:
“The not “facially valid court order”[7] took
the petitioner’s son, his home, his most treasured possessions and sent his
life into a severe, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) generated, detachment
from reality that to this day, 11 years later, still haunts him. He was then kept at a distance from his son,
his possessions, EVERYTHING he cared about in the world[8]
during a disputed divorce where his
adversary, empowered by their criminal fraud, respondents Sharon G. Jeep and
Kristen Capps[9] had been empowered by EVERYTHING that
had been taken from him.
IV.
And
Finally, I freely and clearly admit that I am utilizing my 1st
Amendment right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress
of grievance from the government: “Congress shall
make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.”[10]
“Even
long-suffering people will not suffer forever. Patience expires. The heart can
be broken only so many times before peace is broken…” [11]
What else can I do GIVE UP on my son, the reputation of my father’s good
name, everything of value I ever owned in the world??????????????????
I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Signed this Thursday, December 18, 2014
Signature of Plaintiff(s)
______________________________________________
David G. Jeep
GENERAL DELIVERY
Saint Louis, MO 63155-9999
E-Mail
Dave@DGJeep.com (preferred)
(314) 514-5228
[1] I realize that “sincere
ignorance or conscientious stupidity” (M.L.King, Jr.) are always unfortunately with us.
[2] “This Constitution, and the
Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in
the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
(6.1.2)
[3] Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866) now codified in the
USC as Title 18 § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
[4] Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (1871) now codified in the
USC as Title
42 § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
[5] The Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of
civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of
discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and
women.
[6] Martin Luther King, Jr. Ch. 4 : Love in action,
Sct. 3
[7] The assertion of a
misdemeanor traffic violation does not provide probable cause for a ex parte
restraining order. Clearly based on the
original SERVED handwritten petition dated 11-03-03 as provided hear, there
was a complete absence of jurisdiction for the stated
charge. “Consequently, it (the judge’s
order) can be facially invalid only if it was issued in the "clear absence
of all jurisdiction." Stump v. Sparkman,435 U.S. 349, 356-57, 98 S.Ct.
1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (citation omitted).” Id.” PENN v. U.S. 335 F.3d 790
(2003).
[8] A condition that REALLY has
not changed in 11 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
[9] To make the issue clear, the
Petitioner’s Step Daughter a 21 year old college drop out, had been asked to
move out in the spring of 2003. She fell on her face financially and had to ask
to move back in. She was able by the
fraudulent assertions in court to get the Petitioner thrown out of his house.
[10] AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[11] “Fury After Ferguson” By
Charles M. Blow –By Charles M. Blow - NOV. 26, 2014New York Times - NOV. 26,
2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/opinion/charles-blow-fury-after-ferguson.html
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment